Avvocato per Immigrazione

domenica 26 aprile 2026

Ascolta "Permesso di soggiorno per studio, il TAR Emilia-Romagna annulla il diniego: l’assenza a un appuntamento in Questura non prova da sola il dis" su Spreaker.

alle aprile 26, 2026

Invia tramite email Postalo sul blog Condividi su X Condividi su Facebook Condividi su Pinterest

Nessun commento:

Posta un commento

Post più recente Post più vecchio Home page

Iscriviti a: Commenti sul post (Atom)

Alertas SIS y rechazo de visados: los tribunales italianos cuestionan las denegaciones automáticas

Alertas SIS y rechazo de visados: los tribunales italianos cuestionan las denegaciones automáticas Una reciente sentencia del Tribunal Adm...

Riforma della cittadinanza 2025: le nuove istruzioni operative per i Comuni dopo la legge di conversione

Riforma della cittadinanza 2025: le nuove istruzioni operative per i Comuni dopo la legge di conversione Articolo a cura dell’Avv. Fabio ...
Obbligo della Questura di apporre il Codice Fiscale sulla ricevuta di primo rilascio del permesso di soggiorno per motivi familiari: ordinanza del Tribunale di Bologna del 26 marzo 2025 (N. R.G. 2025/3017 -1)

Obbligo della Questura di apporre il Codice Fiscale sulla ricevuta di primo rilascio del permesso di soggiorno per motivi familiari: ordin...
Quand l’intégration ne suffit plus : l’érosion silencieuse de la “protection spéciale” en Italie

Quand l’intégration ne suffit plus : l’érosion silencieuse de la “protection spéciale” en Italie Dans le système italien du droit des étr...

CODICE ORCID

@avvfabioloscerbo

Diritto dell'Immigrazione

Caricamento in corso...

Avv. Fabio Loscerbo

Caricamento in corso...

AVV. FABIO LOSCERBO

Caricamento in corso...

ASSOCIAZIONE LEGALI IMMIGRAZIONISTI - A.L.I.

Caricamento in corso...

Diritto dell'Immigrazione

Caricamento in corso...

محامي الهجرة

Caricamento in corso...

Avokat për Imigracionin

Caricamento in corso...

Yabancılar için avukat

Caricamento in corso...

Cerca nel blog

Avvocato per Stranieri

Caricamento in corso...

Osservatorio Giuridico sull'Immigrazione

Caricamento in corso...

Home page

وکیل مهاجرتAvv. Fabio Loscerbo

Caricamento in corso...

Archivio blog

► 2025 (304)
- ► gennaio (11)
  - ► gen 19 (2)
  - ► gen 20 (2)
  - ► gen 21 (3)
  - ► gen 23 (1)
  - ► gen 24 (1)
  - ► gen 26 (1)
  - ► gen 29 (1)
- ► febbraio (11)
  - ► feb 01 (1)
  - ► feb 04 (1)
  - ► feb 05 (1)
  - ► feb 10 (1)
  - ► feb 14 (1)
  - ► feb 15 (1)
  - ► feb 27 (2)
  - ► feb 28 (3)
- ► marzo (21)
  - ► mar 02 (1)
  - ► mar 04 (1)
  - ► mar 05 (1)
  - ► mar 06 (1)
  - ► mar 08 (3)
  - ► mar 13 (2)
  - ► mar 14 (1)
  - ► mar 21 (2)
  - ► mar 22 (3)
  - ► mar 23 (1)
  - ► mar 25 (2)
  - ► mar 26 (1)
  - ► mar 28 (1)
  - ► mar 31 (1)
- ► aprile (15)
  - ► apr 01 (1)
  - ► apr 05 (2)
  - ► apr 10 (2)
  - ► apr 13 (4)
  - ► apr 19 (3)
  - ► apr 24 (1)
  - ► apr 27 (2)
- ► maggio (17)
  - ► mag 03 (4)
  - ► mag 10 (2)
  - ► mag 18 (5)
  - ► mag 25 (6)
- ► giugno (24)
  - ► giu 01 (2)
  - ► giu 02 (4)
  - ► giu 07 (4)
  - ► giu 14 (3)
  - ► giu 21 (3)
  - ► giu 28 (6)
  - ► giu 29 (2)
- ► luglio (18)
  - ► lug 02 (1)
  - ► lug 13 (1)
  - ► lug 14 (1)
  - ► lug 15 (1)
  - ► lug 16 (1)
  - ► lug 17 (1)
  - ► lug 18 (1)
  - ► lug 19 (1)
  - ► lug 20 (1)
  - ► lug 22 (1)
  - ► lug 23 (1)
  - ► lug 24 (1)
  - ► lug 25 (1)
  - ► lug 26 (1)
  - ► lug 27 (1)
  - ► lug 28 (1)
  - ► lug 29 (1)
  - ► lug 30 (1)
- ► agosto (7)
  - ► ago 13 (5)
  - ► ago 17 (1)
  - ► ago 26 (1)
- ► settembre (16)
  - ► set 05 (1)
  - ► set 09 (2)
  - ► set 13 (4)
  - ► set 14 (2)
  - ► set 19 (1)
  - ► set 21 (3)
  - ► set 22 (1)
  - ► set 25 (1)
  - ► set 28 (1)
- ► ottobre (63)
  - ► ott 02 (4)
  - ► ott 04 (4)
  - ► ott 05 (12)
  - ► ott 09 (2)
  - ► ott 11 (1)
  - ► ott 12 (10)
  - ► ott 17 (7)
  - ► ott 19 (6)
  - ► ott 25 (3)
  - ► ott 26 (4)
  - ► ott 29 (6)
  - ► ott 31 (4)
- ► novembre (48)
  - ► nov 02 (1)
  - ► nov 04 (1)
  - ► nov 05 (4)
  - ► nov 09 (4)
  - ► nov 15 (7)
  - ► nov 20 (6)
  - ► nov 21 (9)
  - ► nov 22 (1)
  - ► nov 28 (4)
  - ► nov 29 (4)
  - ► nov 30 (7)
- ► dicembre (53)
  - ► dic 02 (1)
  - ► dic 03 (1)
  - ► dic 06 (1)
  - ► dic 07 (1)
  - ► dic 08 (6)
  - ► dic 09 (1)
  - ► dic 10 (2)
  - ► dic 12 (12)
  - ► dic 13 (3)
  - ► dic 14 (4)
  - ► dic 16 (3)
  - ► dic 17 (1)
  - ► dic 19 (1)
  - ► dic 20 (1)
  - ► dic 21 (1)
  - ► dic 22 (1)
  - ► dic 23 (1)
  - ► dic 24 (1)
  - ► dic 25 (1)
  - ► dic 26 (2)
  - ► dic 27 (1)
  - ► dic 28 (1)
  - ► dic 29 (1)
  - ► dic 30 (1)
  - ► dic 31 (4)

▼ 2026 (607)
- ► gennaio (101)
  - ► gen 03 (1)
  - ► gen 04 (2)
  - ► gen 05 (1)
  - ► gen 07 (3)
  - ► gen 08 (1)
  - ► gen 09 (1)
  - ► gen 10 (9)
  - ► gen 12 (4)
  - ► gen 13 (2)
  - ► gen 14 (5)
  - ► gen 15 (2)
  - ► gen 16 (2)
  - ► gen 18 (2)
  - ► gen 19 (1)
  - ► gen 20 (1)
  - ► gen 21 (4)
  - ► gen 22 (1)
  - ► gen 23 (2)
  - ► gen 24 (8)
  - ► gen 25 (4)
  - ► gen 26 (10)
  - ► gen 27 (13)
  - ► gen 28 (7)
  - ► gen 29 (9)
  - ► gen 30 (4)
  - ► gen 31 (2)
- ► febbraio (173)
  - ► feb 02 (2)
  - ► feb 03 (2)
  - ► feb 04 (2)
  - ► feb 05 (4)
  - ► feb 06 (3)
  - ► feb 07 (8)
  - ► feb 08 (7)
  - ► feb 09 (8)
  - ► feb 10 (6)
  - ► feb 11 (7)
  - ► feb 12 (6)
  - ► feb 13 (8)
  - ► feb 14 (4)
  - ► feb 15 (6)
  - ► feb 16 (12)
  - ► feb 17 (5)
  - ► feb 18 (4)
  - ► feb 19 (12)
  - ► feb 20 (8)
  - ► feb 21 (5)
  - ► feb 22 (11)
  - ► feb 23 (11)
  - ► feb 24 (8)
  - ► feb 25 (10)
  - ► feb 26 (4)
  - ► feb 27 (5)
  - ► feb 28 (5)
- ► marzo (102)
  - ► mar 01 (1)
  - ► mar 02 (1)
  - ► mar 03 (2)
  - ► mar 04 (1)
  - ► mar 07 (2)
  - ► mar 08 (5)
  - ► mar 09 (3)
  - ► mar 10 (1)
  - ► mar 11 (5)
  - ► mar 12 (3)
  - ► mar 13 (3)
  - ► mar 14 (4)
  - ► mar 15 (6)
  - ► mar 16 (7)
  - ► mar 17 (6)
  - ► mar 18 (5)
  - ► mar 19 (6)
  - ► mar 20 (3)
  - ► mar 21 (5)
  - ► mar 22 (7)
  - ► mar 23 (1)
  - ► mar 24 (3)
  - ► mar 26 (2)
  - ► mar 27 (3)
  - ► mar 28 (3)
  - ► mar 29 (7)
  - ► mar 30 (5)
  - ► mar 31 (2)
- ▼ aprile (96)
  - ► apr 01 (5)
  - ► apr 02 (3)
  - ► apr 03 (3)
  - ► apr 04 (1)
  - ► apr 05 (5)
  - ► apr 06 (3)
  - ► apr 07 (6)
  - ► apr 08 (2)
  - ► apr 09 (3)
  - ► apr 10 (6)
  - ► apr 11 (6)
  - ► apr 12 (3)
  - ► apr 13 (1)
  - ► apr 14 (3)
  - ► apr 16 (1)
  - ► apr 17 (2)
  - ► apr 18 (4)
  - ► apr 19 (3)
  - ► apr 20 (3)
  - ► apr 21 (3)
  - ► apr 22 (1)
  - ► apr 23 (2)
  - ► apr 24 (1)
  - ► apr 25 (1)
  - ▼ apr 26 (19)
  - ► apr 27 (2)
  - ► apr 28 (1)
  - ► apr 30 (3)
- ► maggio (111)
  - ► mag 01 (6)
  - ► mag 02 (3)
  - ► mag 03 (2)
  - ► mag 04 (2)
  - ► mag 05 (1)
  - ► mag 07 (1)
  - ► mag 09 (3)
  - ► mag 10 (8)
  - ► mag 11 (3)
  - ► mag 12 (17)
  - ► mag 13 (13)
  - ► mag 14 (1)
  - ► mag 15 (14)
  - ► mag 16 (4)
  - ► mag 17 (3)
  - ► mag 18 (3)
  - ► mag 19 (6)
  - ► mag 20 (4)
  - ► mag 21 (3)
  - ► mag 22 (4)
  - ► mag 23 (1)
  - ► mag 24 (1)
  - ► mag 25 (2)
  - ► mag 27 (3)
  - ► mag 28 (2)
  - ► mag 29 (1)
- ► giugno (24)
  - ► giu 01 (1)
  - ► giu 02 (4)
  - ► giu 03 (2)
  - ► giu 05 (2)
  - ► giu 06 (2)
  - ► giu 07 (3)
  - ► giu 08 (4)
  - ► giu 09 (4)
  - ► giu 10 (1)
  - ► giu 11 (1)

Modulo di contatto

Nome

Email *

Messaggio *

Post più popolari

Title: Special Protection: Is Conversion Still Possible?
When a Court Grants Protection but the State Refuses Residence: The Brescia SIS Case Raises Hard Questions https://ift.tt/7szIcqY When a Court Grants Protection but the State Refuses Residence: The Brescia SIS Case Raises Hard Questions A recent decision by the Regional Administrative Court of Brescia is drawing attention well beyond Italian immigration law, because it touches a fundamental issue: what happens when a court recognizes a migrant’s right to protection, but the administrative authorities still refuse to issue the residence permit? That is the legal paradox at the heart of the judgment issued on 23 April 2026 by the Administrative Court of Brescia. The case concerns a foreign national who had obtained a final judicial decree recognizing subsidiary protection. Ordinarily, that should have opened the way to the issuance of a residence permit. Instead, the Questura denied the permit on the basis of an alert in the Schengen Information System, the SIS, reportedly maintained even after the judicial ruling. The clash is striking. On one side stands a final court judgment recognizing an international protection status. On the other, an administrative refusal grounded in a European security database. The case raises a broader question that reaches beyond Italy: can a security alert effectively override the practical consequences of a judicial ruling? Formally, the court resolved the case on procedural grounds, declaring the enforcement action inadmissible. Yet the deeper issue remains unresolved, and that is precisely why the decision matters. At stake is not merely a technical dispute over procedure. It is the effectiveness of rights. In migration law, a right that exists only on paper but cannot be translated into lawful status may become little more than a symbolic recognition. That concern resonates across Europe, where immigration law increasingly sits at the intersection of border security, judicial protection, and supranational databases. The Schengen Information System was designed as a tool of cooperation among states, but this case highlights how such instruments may collide with court-based protection mechanisms. The Brescia ruling therefore opens a debate larger than the individual case. It concerns the balance between judicial authority and administrative security measures. It concerns whether a person granted protection by a judge can still remain trapped in legal limbo. And it raises a practical question immigration lawyers across Europe know well: is winning a case enough if enforcement can still be blocked? For critics, the case illustrates the risk that bureaucratic or security mechanisms may indirectly neutralize judicial protection. For others, it shows the unresolved tension between migration control and fundamental rights in the Schengen legal order. Either way, the case is significant because it reveals a structural problem, not an isolated anomaly. In immigration law, the hardest battle is often not obtaining recognition of rights, but making those rights effective. And that is why the Brescia SIS case deserves attention far beyond Italy. Fabio Loscerbo Immigration Lawyer ORCID: https://ift.tt/NmEZTCX https://ift.tt/9TbgfWE Avv. Fabio Loscerbo https://ift.tt/A6DNJBO Avv. Fabio Loscerbo https://ift.tt/NQi3gs1 Avv. Fabio Loscerbo https://ift.tt/JfXqVpE https://ift.tt/jXr19BG via Avv. Fabio Loscerbo https://ift.tt/SWfNLqG https://ift.tt/qksOwjo

via Avv. Fabio Loscerbo https://ift.tt/SWfNLqG
When a Court Grants Protection but the State Refuses Residence: The Brescia SIS Case Raises Hard Questions

When a Court Grants Protection but the State Refuses Residence: The Brescia SIS Case Raises Hard Questions A recent decision by the Regio...
When Integration Is Not Enough: The Quiet Erosion of “Special Protection” in Italy

When Integration Is Not Enough: The Quiet Erosion of “Special Protection” in Italy In Italy’s immigration system, one of the most conseque...
Título: Residencia de larga duración y ausencia superior a 12 meses
When a Court Grants Protection but the State Refuses Residence: The Brescia SIS Case Raises Hard Questions https://ift.tt/7szIcqY When a Court Grants Protection but the State Refuses Residence: The Brescia SIS Case Raises Hard Questions A recent decision by the Regional Administrative Court of Brescia is drawing attention well beyond Italian immigration law, because it touches a fundamental issue: what happens when a court recognizes a migrant’s right to protection, but the administrative authorities still refuse to issue the residence permit? That is the legal paradox at the heart of the judgment issued on 23 April 2026 by the Administrative Court of Brescia. The case concerns a foreign national who had obtained a final judicial decree recognizing subsidiary protection. Ordinarily, that should have opened the way to the issuance of a residence permit. Instead, the Questura denied the permit on the basis of an alert in the Schengen Information System, the SIS, reportedly maintained even after the judicial ruling. The clash is striking. On one side stands a final court judgment recognizing an international protection status. On the other, an administrative refusal grounded in a European security database. The case raises a broader question that reaches beyond Italy: can a security alert effectively override the practical consequences of a judicial ruling? Formally, the court resolved the case on procedural grounds, declaring the enforcement action inadmissible. Yet the deeper issue remains unresolved, and that is precisely why the decision matters. At stake is not merely a technical dispute over procedure. It is the effectiveness of rights. In migration law, a right that exists only on paper but cannot be translated into lawful status may become little more than a symbolic recognition. That concern resonates across Europe, where immigration law increasingly sits at the intersection of border security, judicial protection, and supranational databases. The Schengen Information System was designed as a tool of cooperation among states, but this case highlights how such instruments may collide with court-based protection mechanisms. The Brescia ruling therefore opens a debate larger than the individual case. It concerns the balance between judicial authority and administrative security measures. It concerns whether a person granted protection by a judge can still remain trapped in legal limbo. And it raises a practical question immigration lawyers across Europe know well: is winning a case enough if enforcement can still be blocked? For critics, the case illustrates the risk that bureaucratic or security mechanisms may indirectly neutralize judicial protection. For others, it shows the unresolved tension between migration control and fundamental rights in the Schengen legal order. Either way, the case is significant because it reveals a structural problem, not an isolated anomaly. In immigration law, the hardest battle is often not obtaining recognition of rights, but making those rights effective. And that is why the Brescia SIS case deserves attention far beyond Italy. Fabio Loscerbo Immigration Lawyer ORCID: https://ift.tt/NmEZTCX https://ift.tt/9TbgfWE Avv. Fabio Loscerbo https://ift.tt/A6DNJBO Avv. Fabio Loscerbo https://ift.tt/NQi3gs1 Avv. Fabio Loscerbo https://ift.tt/JfXqVpE https://ift.tt/jXr19BG via Avv. Fabio Loscerbo https://ift.tt/SWfNLqG https://ift.tt/qksOwjo https://ift.tt/AaF9w1c via Avv. Fabio Loscerbo https://ift.tt/SWfNLqG https://ift.tt/VlBoSZF Avv. Fabio Loscerbo https://ift.tt/JfXqVpE

via Avv. Fabio Loscerbo https://ift.tt/SWfNLqG
Straniero detenuto e diritto al rinnovo del permesso di soggiorno: accesso effettivo alle procedure amministrative in ambito penitenziario

TEMA: Straniero detenuto e diritto al rinnovo del permesso di soggiorno: accesso effettivo alle procedure amministrative in ambito penitenz...
(senza titolo)

Ascolta "Conversión del permiso estacional incluso después de su vencimiento" su Spreaker.
Italy: Court Overturns Police Decision and Grants Residence Permit Based on Real Integration

Italy: Court Overturns Police Decision and Grants Residence Permit Based on Real Integration A recent ruling by the Tribunal of Bologna is ...
New on TikTok: Titre : Étranger détenu et droit au renouvellement du titre de séjour : le décret du 7 avril 2026 Bienvenue dans un nouvel épisode du podcast Droit de l’Immigration. Je suis l’avocat Fabio Loscerbo. Aujourd’hui, nous abordons une question très concrète, mais juridiquement essentielle : le droit pour un étranger détenu de renouveler son titre de séjour. L’affaire concerne le décret numéro 2827 de 2026, rendu le 7 avril 2026 par le juge de l’application des peines de Bologne. Il s’agissait d’examiner une demande de permission de sortie présentée par un ressortissant étranger détenu, afin de se rendre personnellement à la Questura pour renouveler son titre de séjour pour protection subsidiaire. Le point central est simple, mais souvent négligé : la procédure administrative exige la présence physique de l’intéressé. Or, la détention rend cela impossible sans autorisation judiciaire. Le juge intervient donc en utilisant l’instrument de la permission de sortie prévu par le droit pénitentiaire. Mais il le fait selon une approche substantielle, et non purement formelle. En effet, le juge considère que la notion d’« événement » justifiant la permission ne doit pas être interprétée de manière restrictive. Une exigence administrative, comme le renouvellement d’un titre de séjour, peut constituer un événement suffisamment grave, dès lors qu’elle affecte la situation juridique et personnelle du détenu. L’absence de renouvellement entraînerait des conséquences graves et potentiellement irréversibles : perte du séjour régulier, interruption du parcours d’intégration et exposition à d’autres mesures administratives. Pour cette raison, le décret autorise le détenu à se rendre à la Questura, en prévoyant des modalités précises, notamment un accompagnement sous escorte pendant toute la durée de la permission. Cette décision affirme un principe fondamental : le droit de l’immigration ne s’interrompt pas en détention. Les procédures administratives continuent de produire leurs effets et doivent être concrètement accessibles. Dans une perspective plus large, cette décision renforce une approche substantielle des droits des étrangers, fondée non sur la condition formelle, mais sur la possibilité réelle d’exercer ses droits. Merci pour votre écoute. À bientôt pour un nouvel épisode du podcast Droit de l’Immigration.

https://ift.tt/oLnTrz4

Segnala una violazione

Etichette

FacebookPages
ifttt
videos
YouTube
FacebookPages
ifttt
IFTTT
Medium
Protezione speciale e obbligo di valutazione del radicamento
tiktok
videos

Archivio blog

Integrazione o ReImmigrazione

Caricamento in corso...

Diritto dell'Immigrazione

Caricamento in corso...

Avv. Fabio Loscerbo

Caricamento in corso...

Tema Semplice. Powered by Blogger.